Authors Note: I wrote this today and sent it to the Fresno Bee as a letter to the editor, in response to someone else’s letter that appeared yesterday. Much of this is not original material. I’ve borrowed from two of my colleagues who have worded amazing responses to this general argument. Those colleagues are Scott Klusendorf and Steve Wagner. I added some of my own words and compiled everything together into what is hopefully an effective response. I hope this gives you a few ideas for what you can say the next time you hear this pro-abortion-choice argument.
In response to Jackie DeFreitas 5/20 letter challenging pro-lifers to adopt unwanted babies, she misses the point. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that pro-lifers are not already adopting unwanted children. How would this in any way justify the act of dismembering a defenseless child?
While I do think that pro-lifers have a duty to help those facing an unplanned pregnancy (both mother and baby), it is not true that abortion is justified whenever that obligation is left unmet. At best, you’d prove that some pro-lifers are inconsistent. That’s all.
How bizarre would it be for me to argue, “Unless you are willing to marry my wife, you have no right to oppose me beating her.” Or, “Unless you employ ex-slaves in your business, you have no right to oppose slavery.” (Indeed, this was the very argument slave owners made a century ago.)
Here’s my challenge to Jackie: if pro-lifers like me ARE willing to adopt them, (and many are willing to adopt physically or mentally handicapped babies as well,) will you agree that abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal?